All Activityhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/discover/The Education Forum - All ActivityenWHEN does Oswald crystallize into the patsy?Jason,
That's right -- and there's plenty more where that came from. Lots and lots. Keep up the great work.
Regards,
--Paul TrejoFri, 18 Aug 2017 03:48:18 +0000WHEN does Oswald crystallize into the patsy?Jason,
Almost every famous murder case has its share of "mistaken identity" eye-witnesses.
In the case of the FBI Lone-Nut theory, the "mistaken identity" eye-witnesses of Oswald were given high value.
That is the ONLY source that I can see for the long-time CIA-did-it fiction that there were EVER two Oswalds.
Simple cases of "mistaken identity." I'm willing to go over every case in the WC testimony with you on this score.
Regards,
--Paul TrejoFri, 18 Aug 2017 03:43:17 +0000WHEN does Oswald crystallize into the patsy?Jason
The info from the WC, FBI and CIA is tainted. One doesn't know what to believe. But if someone lies to me I stop believing that someone.
I believe Oswald and the two Cubans drove up from Laredo and met with Odio on the evening of 26 Oct.
The CIA and FB muddied up the waters. When the water `clears you see the fish. Well eliminate the Mexico fake documentation and you see the Mexico City affair for what it is ... the impersonation of Oswald.
You are on the right track. However I think the patsification of Oswald was before he got the job at the TSBD.Fri, 18 Aug 2017 03:19:27 +0000DeleteJe suis d'accord.Fri, 18 Aug 2017 02:51:33 +0000Ruth - a typewriter - 15 daysPaul,
I can prove in a single reasoned statement that the Walker-Did-It theory is wrong:
Had Walker and his followers on the far right been behind the assassination, there would have been no reason for the cover up. The bastards would have been arrested, tried, and convicted. And that would have been the end of it.
There had to have been a very compelling reason for so many people in government to go along with the cover up. Saving Walker's hide wouldn't have fit the bill.
So just give up, toss your silly theory in the trash, and start over.Fri, 18 Aug 2017 02:44:10 +0000WHEN does Oswald crystallize into the patsy?Many thanks for the reply, George.
I am interested in this date of patsification because I'm not sure its worth looking at Oswald anytime before he's the patsy. I mean, there's already a ton out there about pre-patsy Oswald; I feel fruitful answers are most likely found by looking at the evidence after he's designated patsy.
If Oswald isn't in Mexico, where was he? You feel the Mexican trip memorabilia found among his stuff was planted? I know Sylvia Odio says she met Oswald during the time of the alleged Mexico trip; but she only decided on this date later - when she first gave a statement she wasn't so sure when she saw him. There are also a few people who say they rode on the bus with him from Laredo to MC...
Thanks again,
JasonFri, 18 Aug 2017 00:56:26 +0000John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:54:24 +0000WHEN does Oswald crystallize into the patsy?Jason
Oswald never` travelled to Mexico City in late Sep early Nov 1963
Why was Oswald impersonated in the Cuban and Russian consulates if he was going there anyway? According to the WC, Oswald went to Mexico City to get an in transit visa for Cuba and a visa for Russia. The only reason to fake his presence in Mexico City is that he wasn't going there.
I'm not sure when Oswald was designated the patsy by the plotters. If I was to guess, it's probably when David Phillips becomes his handler.Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:38:38 +0000John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!FYI: This debate was at a time that preceded efficient web streaming. So this is the only portion that was able to be preserved as there were extremely long gaps in it due to buffering, etc. I wish I had the rest of it, but alas...Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:33:05 +0000The latest from Ruth PaineBut you asked why they didn't PROSECUTE.
I answered your question as it was asked. Unlike you, I don't read minds. I read words.Thu, 17 Aug 2017 23:50:42 +0000A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" WebsiteSuppose that HARVEY and that two men associated with him in New York weren't even Hungarian. It's possible that they were former Soviet citizens, but were hiding that fact from their communist hating American neighbors.
If so, it's possible that they immigrated from one of the Baltic states. Which would explain Marina's opinion that HARVEY spoke with a Baltic accent.Thu, 17 Aug 2017 23:44:09 +0000John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!Never.
Here's what I said in 2011....Thu, 17 Aug 2017 23:25:45 +0000A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" WebsiteWhether the Russian language was taught in Hungary beginning at 5th grade or before then has no bearing on the viability of the Hungarian Orphan theory. There are numerous possible scenarios in which HARVEY could have learned Russian in Eastern Europe. A simple one, off the top of my head, is that HARVEY could have been born in a Russian speaking household inside Hungary, and learned the language from his caretakers, who may have been his parents. His caretakers may have been killed in WWII skirmishes and somehow HARVEY ended up in the hands of the Hungarian men who took him to the United States.
It's even possible that HARVEY was born in southeast Poland, in an region known as Eastern Galicia. Prior to WWI, Galicia was a part of the Kingdom of Hungary. So it wouldn't be unreasonable to believe that the people who lived there at the time of HARVEY's birth considered themselves to be Hungarians, not Polish. Especially considering that the Polish government treated these minorities unfavorably.
In 1939, the supposed year of HARVEY's birth, the Soviet Union invaded Poland, at which time Galicia (remember, formerly part of Hungary) was occupied by the Russians. In 1945 Galicia was annexed by the Soviets and it became part of Ukraine. This made sense given that the primary language of Eastern Galicia was Ukrainian. The Russian language had long been taught in Ukraine due to Russification efforts. So it's highly likely that the Russian Language requirements would have also applied to the new Ukrainian population introduced with the annexation of Galicia.
In summary, it's possible that HARVEY was born in a Soviet-occupied former region of Hungary (Galicia), and then six years later was assimilated into Russified Ukraine where HARVEY learned Russian.Thu, 17 Aug 2017 23:20:30 +0000WHEN does Oswald crystallize into the patsy?Thu, 17 Aug 2017 23:14:35 +0000WHEN does Oswald crystallize into the patsy?Thu, 17 Aug 2017 23:05:53 +0000John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!So you, he, and Reitzes never talked about an appearance on Anton Batey's radio show for a debate?Thu, 17 Aug 2017 22:38:48 +0000A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" WebsiteJEREMY - It doesn't matter how many years this teaching had been going on by the time Jim's hypothetical refugee child reached grade 5 at his school in Hungary. The point is that there was a period of only two years between the time the hypothetical child could have begun learning Russian and the time when the hypothetical child appears in New York with the name of Lee Harvey Oswald and the ability to speak perfect English. If the hypothetical boy existed, he must have learned two foreign languages, Russian and English, to the level of a native speaker in just two years.
But Jeremy, don't you know? Sandy Larsen has EVIDENCE - you know, that's all he goes by - that children can learn things much, much faster than adults. So you cannot ever question Sandy Larsen's (ahem...snort) EV-I-DENCE. You, know, because, er, he only goes by...the EV-I-DENCE.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcs5z4gyRH1r4ekn1o9_250.gif
What a xxxxing joke!Thu, 17 Aug 2017 22:27:11 +0000John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!I haven't closely followed any of the controversy surrounding John McAdams and his Marquette problems. I don't care about it at all.
As for my "cavorting" with Professor McAdams, you Jimmy don't have any idea what you're talking about. You think that just because I agree with McAdams about the JFK case, that must mean I know him very well and am "cavorting" with him on a regular basis. Is that it? Well, think again Jimbo. I've never met the man and I've never "cavorted" with him. And I rarely speak with him directly on the Internet either. I've had a few conversations with him over the years on his aaj forum, but nothing more than that. And, in fact, there was a little bit of friction between us a few months ago [see forum excerpt below]. So if you're under the impression that I'm buddy-buddy with Prof. McAdams, you're way off the beam (as usual).
From May 2017....
JOHN McADAMS SAID:
I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other fifties liberals.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left" with you, John? It's ridiculous, IMO. And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?
I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!
I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.
-----------------------------------------------
Complete Discussion:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/cmr70eNfq9c/vPuuklIdAwAJThu, 17 Aug 2017 22:10:16 +0000John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!Will someone please tell the Carnival Barker that this thread is about John McAdams, his harassment of Cheryl Abbate, his dismissal at Marquette by two administrative hearings, and his recent court case which ruled against him
I would not want to comment on that either if I was him because it shows the kinds of people he cavorts with.Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:42:15 +0000John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!Reprise....
Wooooosh!!!Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:37:08 +0000Philadelphia did-itAnd then there's the "Cheese Mafia", I remember when two mobster's blew themselves up in what was then my hometown, Ambler, Pa.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/70579NCJRS.pdfThu, 17 Aug 2017 21:29:51 +0000John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!As per McAdams, in the Abbate case, he showed all the trademarks that he had previously used in the JFK arena. Having studied the Abbate case at length and in depth, I know what I am talking about.
He deliberately set out to make her radioactive by using a mischaracterization of the incident. And then he tried to hide his own role in it. He was the student's faculty advisor and the student had switched to him just recently. He immediately mischaracterized the whole series of events that took place afterwards, by saying that Marquette had "blown the kid's complaint off", and he also left out the fact that the student was flunking the class. Which was a very important piece of information for obvious reasons. (If Mr. Scientist does not understand why, I will inform him of why.)
He then wrote a series of blog posts and appeared on radio and named the student teacher multiple times. ( He later mischaracterized all these actions on TV by saying he had been suspended over "a blog post".) By naming her, and then going public, he set her up for the written threats she got, some to her own school mailbox. She was physically threatened and this created a real psychological fear, and the college had to provide her a security guard. It got so bad she had to flee her position at Marquette. She went to Colorado U at Boulder. This was a real professional sacrifice, since she now had to make up and repeat many credit units. If she had been attacked, or killed, Marquette would have faced a horrific law suit and terrible publicity. Especially in light of the fact of McAdams' past behavior in regards to students and teachers, which was detailed in both administrative reviews. Because of those factors, I would not have been surprised if her family would have gotten over ten million dollars in a wrongful death action, maybe more with punitive damages. And topflight lawyers would have been begging to represent them. As I said, I know this case well since I wrote about it on three occasions and actually read the Dean's report and the final faculty report, combined at about 170 pages.
The personal traits displayed here are so cognate with what McAdams had done in the JFK arena that some people wanted to write Marquette a letter signed by some prominent researchers. I advised against it for the simple reason that what he had done with Abbate was so appalling on its own, that I thought it would surely be enough to make for some kind of serious punishment. It did, but even then, McAdams was offered a deal to come back if he pledged to abide by the faculty handbook. He refused.
PS As per DVP's latest carnival barking, please give us all a break will you? When I heard what you did to Bob Harris, it reminded me of just how bad you really are.Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:05:38 +0000John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!Woooooosh! My "What Are The Odds?" observation goes sailing right over the head of Jimmy D.! (What a surprise.)Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:02:29 +0000WHEN does Oswald crystallize into the patsy?Thu, 17 Aug 2017 20:53:26 +0000John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!The Carnival Barker--DVP-- is at it again.
Look, anyone who sat through the 75 minute presentation Gary Aguilar arranged in San Francisco where Randich and Grant thoroughly explained why their old friend Guinn was wrong on this, came away with a basic understanding of why it is not reliable. I also read a very long paper on this by Tobin.
Guinn was not a metallurgist and he was not a statistician. And Blakey, who hired the guy to create the so called lynchpin to the cover up, later was forced to admit what Guinn did was nothing but junk science. Anyone who listened to that oral analysis, or read the written analysis, could understand why Guinn was wrong.
Here is a good essay which exposes both Bugliosi and Guinn, scroll down to the Bullet Evidence in the JFK case for the relevant part. Even Baker can understand this I think:
http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Review_of_Reclaiming_History.htmlThu, 17 Aug 2017 20:52:20 +0000